The third epistle encourages the believer to the exercise of
hospitality, whether towards the known brethren or strangers, and
to all benevolent care in furthering their journey when departing,
provided that they come with the truth and for the truth's sake
without salary or provision. Gaius received them, as it appears,
and was helpful to them both in his own house and on their
journey. Diotrephes, on the contrary, did not love these
strangers, who went about, it is said, without a formal mission
and without any visible means of subsistence. They had gone forth
for the Lord's sake and had received nothing from the Gentiles. If
they in reality came out of love to that name, one did well to
receive them.

Again the apostle insists on the truth, as characterising real
love: "Whom I love in the truth," he says to Gaius. He rejoiced
when the brethren (those, I imagine, whom Gaius had received into
his house and helped on their journey) testified of the truth that
was in him, as in effect he walked in the truth. The apostle had
no greater joy than that of hearing that his children walked in
the truth. In receiving those who went forth to preach the truth,
they helped the truth itself; they were co-workers with
it. Diotrephes would have nothing to do with this; he not only
refused to receive these itinerant preachers, but excommunicated
those who did so. He claimed authority for himself. The apostle
would remember it. It was their duty to do good. "He that doeth
good is of God." -- He goes so far, with regard to the truth, as
to say, that the truth itself bore witness to Demetrius. I suppose
that the latter had propagated it, and that the establishment and
confirmation of the truth everywhere -- at least where he had
laboured -- was a testimony with regard to himself.

This insistence on the truth, as the test for the last days, is
very remarkable; and so is this preaching itinerary by persons who
took nothing of the Gentiles when they came forth, leaving it to
God to cause them to be received of those who had the truth at
heart, the truth being their only passport among Christians, and
the only means by which the apostle could guard the faithful. It
appears that they were of the Jewish race, for he says, "receiving
nothing of the Gentiles," the apostle thus making the distinction.
I notice this, because, if it be so, the force of the expression
"and not for ours only" (1 John 2: 2) becomes simple and evident,
which it is not to every one. The apostle, as Paul does, makes the
difference of us, Jews, though one in Christ. We may also remark
that the apostle addressed the assembly, and not Diotrephes, its
head; and that it was this leader who, loving pre-eminence,
resisted the apostle's words, which the assembly, as it appears,
were not inclined to do.

Gaius persevered in his godly course, in spite of the
ecclesiastical authority (whatever may have been its right or
pretended right) which Diotrephes evidently exercised: for he cast
persons out of the assembly.

When the apostle came, he would (like Paul) manifest his real
power. He did not own in himself an ecclesiastical authority to
remedy these things by a command. These epistles are very
remarkable in this respect. With regard to those who went about
preaching, the only means he had, even in the case of a woman, was
to call her attention to the truth. The authority of the preacher
lay altogether in that. His competency was another matter. The
apostle knew no authority which sanctioned their mission, the
absence of which would prove it to be false or unauthorised. The
whole question of their reception lay in the doctrine which they
brought. The apostle had no other way to judge of the authority of
their mission: there was then no other; for, had there been any,
that authority would have flowed from him. He would have been able
to say, "Where are the proofs of their mission?" He knew none but
this -- do they bring the truth? If not, do not salute them. If
they bring the truth, you do well to receive them, in spite of all
the Diotrephes in the world.